The PlanetCricket View: Two match series are killing test cricket

[PlanetCricket]

Article by barmyarmy -

Another two match series finishes and two more sets of players and fans are once again robbed of the chance of a satisfying conclusion. What applies to a test match about the ebb and flow that happens from session to session and from day to day also applies to a series. A two match series is like a two day test. You?ve only just got started and then it?s time for the taxi to the airport. This trend is especially unfortunate in the past year due to the thrilling nature of recent series which have been left poised on a knife edge at 1-1.

We have seen South Africa draw their two test series in India, Pakistan fight back against Australia in England to leave us at 1-1, the West Indies and Pakistan left hanging after two tests at 1-1, Pakistan again unable to conclude a two match series against South Africa. A pulsating thrilling series between South Africa and Australia finished, wait for it, 1-1, New Zealand?s heroics in Hobart leaving the series 1-1 and now England fighting back and beginning to master the Sri Lankan attack before the series is once again cut off in its prime.

Series like this leave so many unanswered questions about what might have happened. Would Jayawardene have continued his wonderful batting streak? Could Steyn and Philander have continued to torment the Australian batting lineup? Was the Black Caps victory a flash in the pan? Without the time for a series to develop the individual battles are forgotten almost as quickly as if it had been a one day series.

Sadly only England appears to be showing any desire to play a series beyond three matches. The only five match series on the international programme is the Ashes, and India?s recent tour of Australia is the only four match series not involving England. It?s understandable in an age where crowds for test cricket are falling everywhere except England that boards will want to cut back and schedule more ODIs and T20s but the ICC need to make clear that a three test series minimum should be in place for when the top sides meet. It simply isn?t good enough for Australia and South Africa or South Africa and India to only play two tests.

Increasingly two and even one match series are becoming the standard where ?minnows? are involved. The trouble is that ?minnows? now seems to have been extended to describe everyone except Australia, England, India and South Africa and we already know what the latter think of three test series. Were test cricket dying in terms of attritional run-rates and negative play this might be slightly more acceptable but instead 2011/2 has been one of the richest in living memory for thrilling finishes, wonderful innings and superlative bowling displays. There is nothing better than test cricket right now so why are we seeing so little of it?

To conclude here is a little counter-factual exercise based on a famous series in 2005. The stage is Edgbaston and Steve Harmison is steaming in to bowl to Michael Kasprowicz. A famous victory by two runs and then?nothing. Australia draw the series 1-1 and retain then Ashes. No Flintoff century at Trent Bridge, no nerveless arrival into test cricket for Kevin Pietersen at the Oval, no open-top bus parade through London, just another failed assault on the Ashes. Even Australians admit that series to have been one of the best ever and it certainly wouldn?t have benefited from being cut down before it had a chance to grow.

So ICC we implore you to do something positive for the game. This is more important than DRS or when a batter can or can?t move in the bowler?s delivery stride. Ensure that that Future Tours Programme respects the integrity of both the test match and the test series. Otherwise you are slowly destroying our wonderful game.



More...

 

[barmyarmy]

Something I didn't mention but talked about in the SL/Eng thread (or on twitter recently) is that England always used to play six test series at home. Not sure most international test players would know what to do in a series that long now.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I agree, focusing on DRS, the IPL, twenty20, domestic cricket standard, flat pitches, even corruption to an extent is not being able to see the forest for the trees. The one over-riding problem cricket is faced with now is context.

every other sport has big championships, something to aim at, cricket more and more is becoming a tribute to an old fashioned game rather than something relevant in the now. Probably one of the reasons we spends so much time comparing cricketers, what else is there to aim for but places on imaginery "best ever..." lists?

these 3 test series leave the competition unresolved, and unresolved competition is meaningless. however, I still think the test championship is something we need to introduce, and I think one of the caveats needs to be, if there is a point system, you need to win a series of a minimum three matches to get the points.

be interesting to see how many teams want to tour NZ for two tests if something is on the line then.

 

[sifter132]

Yes there has been a lot of 1-1 series, hadn't realised so many. But just playing devils advocate, would a 1-1 be OK in 3 Tests? Or is the complaint more that we need a winner?

As for England playing 6 Test series, yes I remember them vaguely, think the last couple were in the 90s for the Ashes. The thing was though, that in the 70s-early 90s when there was 6 Test series, there was no Zimbabwe or Bangladesh back then. SA had been banned. SL were the minnows and barely ever toured. So England really only had to host Aus, WI, Ind, Pak and NZ. That leaves plenty of space for a 6 Test Ashes, especially when they only played 3 match ODI series back then (in whites ) and no T20s.

Now that those more argumentative points are done (), I agree there has to be a standard series length. I think the 3-3-3 for each format that we just saw for NZ vs SA is right on. If boards want to play longer series eg. Aus-Eng, that's fine, just don't complain about lack of cricket.

But I guess I can also see that if boards want to play shorter series against the obviously bad teams then I can understand that. I guess I'm OK with it as long as they send their A team over at some point to make up for any matches not played eg. If Australia goes to Zimbabwe for a one off Test, then Australia A should tour Zimbabwe and play 2 more at some point. That idea stuffs up the Test championship table a bit as not every team would have the same number of matches, but I think it helps the lesser nations.

 

[War]

Ye two-test series are dumb. We had that drawn 1-1 SA tour to India in 2010, 1-1 SA vs AUS series last October now the recent England vs SRI tests.

3 test should be minimum tests played in every series. But of course exceptions can be made when playing BANG or ZIM.

As Sifter132 said, the recent SA tour to NZ where you had 3:3:3 is the way all international tours should go, given we have three formats.

Only the Ashes, Ind vs PAK (whenever they play again), AUS vs SA and ENG vs SA should be more than 3 tests.

 

[barmyarmy]

I definitely remember watching a lot of 6 test series as a kid. Would be interesting to check when the last one was. I think you're going back a long way for ODIs in whites. Pretty much all the international sides were doing it by the early 80s after World Series Cricket.
Regarding drawn 3 test series, I reckon that's becoming much less likely because so many tests have positive results these days. With fewer draws it stands to reason that a lot of 2 test series will finish one apiece.

----------

Well according to the series played list I used the last 6 test series was 97/98. Also got to love the 6 test series in 1981 which finished 1-0...

 

[sifter132]

Well I just remember that for England's home ODIs, they stayed in whites for WAY longer than anyone else in the world did. And only ever had 3 match series.

And...looking it up...

The last 6 match Test series I can find was 1997/98: WI hosting England. The England hosted leg of the Ashes from 1981-1997 were all 6 Tests. In Australia it was only 5, probably in part because Hobart wasn't rated as a Test venue. But there were no 6 Test series before the 70s.

And those England hosted ODI series were the Texaco Trophy - as called from 1984-1998. All but one summer, max was 3 ODIs. Then they had World Cup in 1999, and then the triangular Natwest series started in 2000.

Whites? Yeah definitely. Seems they played in them up til 1998 too, judging by this pic I found. It's Ali Brown - who never played Tests, celebrating 50 vs SA in 1998.

 

[War]

Ye 1998 was the last season of white clothes ODIs in England and the world in general, since i recall on Australia's 1998 tour to Pakistan they played white clothes ODIs with the red ball as well.

Also the India vs New Zealand 1999 ODI series in India also was white clothes too i think.

 

[barmyarmy]

Maybe just the world cups were coloured clothing then.

 

[barmyarmy]

If anyone has read Lawrence Booth's editorial in Wisden it says pretty much this as well.

 

[Owzat]

But just playing devils advocate, would a 1-1 be OK in 3 Tests? Or is the complaint more that we need a winner?

England generally only play two Tests in a series against sides they expect to beat, or if the opposition dictate the length like India wanting two Tests and a hundred ODIs with a zillion T20s.................

Since 2000 England have played 10 two match series and 16 three match series

Two match : P10 W7 D2 L1 (W or L = 80.00%)
Three match : P16 W7 D3 L6 (W or L = 81.25%)

and throwing in four and five match series :

Four match : P9 W6 D2 L1 (W or L = 77.78%)
Five match : P10 W5 D1 L4 (W or L = 90.00%)

There is no real evidence an odd number of matches in a series will produce a (positive) series result, because sides can draw Tests. Of those 10 five match series FIVE were Ashes and three England were tonked so it wouldn't have mattered if it had been four matches or not - 4-1 in 2001 and 02/03, 5-0 in 06/07. Disregarding those three series as the number of Tests was not a factor in the result, 6 results in 7 series = 85.71% so the significance of the number of Tests in a series is limited.

Even at 90% results it doesn't shine through as way ahead of the rest, I mean we're not talking about significant reductions in drawn series by increasing the series length. I suspect it is simply it doesn't feel like a Test series with only two Tests, most perhaps not wanting to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at all. For me four should be standard, and penalise the host nation if they produce flat tracks that result in more than one big scorer ie try to get more result pitches.

Who says a drawn series is a bad result anyway?



As for six Test series, reserved for "big series" except West Indies (1995) are no longer "big" and with the sides being pushed into quasi schedules they have to try and play two series in a summer and winter so six is impractical, as is five really but purists won't want the Ashes "downgraded" to four Tests.

 

[barmyarmy]

The point I would say you're missing there is that there are now fewer draws than they're used to be so even numbered series are more likely to end level. The stats you've quoted are possibly going back too far.

 

[Owzat]

The point I would say you're missing there is that there are now fewer draws than they're used to be so even numbered series are more likely to end level. The stats you've quoted are possibly going back too far.

Surely there'd be more than 1-3 in any of the stats if there were more or less than there used to be...............................?

I think it is a myth that even series are more likely to end 'even' than odd series, if you care to do it for more recent series and not just England then knock yourself out.

 

[barmyarmy]

I can't be bothered but I would like to see the stats on drawn tests versus result tests in the past 10 years. Non-rain affected matches have tended to produce results in recent years.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

but I still think a draw over 3 tests, 1 win each and a draw is a better indicator that the teams were quite evenly matched (except it is annoying when one of the pitches is too flat for a result) with a 1-1 it's just the two teams trading blows and doesn't allow a chance for either team to grab the momentum or retaliate by stealing back the win.